American Agrijusters v. Dep. of Labor

10 Citing cases

  1. Butler v. Domin

    302 Mont. 452 (Mont. 2000)   Cited 33 times
    Adopting Sword

    ¶ 29 An individual is an employee of another when that other has the right to control the details, methods, or means of accomplishing the individual's work. Fandrich v. Capital Ford Lincoln Mercury (1995), 272 Mont. 425, 430, 901 P.2d 112, 115. See also American Agrijusters Co. v. Montana Dep't of Labor and Indus., 1999 MT 241, ¶ 21, 296 Mont. 176, ¶ 21, 988 P.2d 782, ¶ 21 (discussing the definition of "independent contractor" pursuant to § 39-51-201(14), MCA). In determining whether a right of control exists sufficient to give rise to an employer-employee relationship in a given situation, we have identified four factors that guide the inquiry: (1) direct evidence of right or exercise of control; (2) method of payment; (3) furnishing of equipment; and (4) right to fire.

  2. Ramsbacher v. Jim Palmer Trucking

    391 Mont. 298 (Mont. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    JPT was Ramsbacher’s employer-in-fact, controlling his day-to-day job duties. See Am. Agrijusters Co. v. Mont. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., Bd. of Labor Appeals , 1999 MT 241, ¶ 22, 296 Mont. 176, 988 P.2d 782 ("[A]n individual is an employee of another when that other has the right to control the details, methods, or means of accomplishing the individual’s work, and not just the end result of the work.") (citations omitted). JPT was also Ramsbacher’s employer-in-law under the PEO Act.

  3. Cline v. Kralich

    2017 MT 187 (Mont. 2017)

    Substantial evidence is "something more than a scintilla of evidence, but may be less than a preponderance of the evidence." Am. Agrijusters Co. v. Montana Dept. of Labor & Indus., 1999 MT 241, ¶ 15, 296 Mont. 176, 988 P.2d 782. Testimony was elicited at trial suggesting the damages the Kraliches claimed were speculative in nature, which fails to meet the standard of substantial evidence.

  4. Somont Oil Co. v. King

    366 Mont. 251 (Mont. 2012)   Cited 5 times

    ¶ 19 When reviewing a final agency decision, we have often stated that substantial evidence requires “more than a scintilla of evidence, but less than a preponderance of the evidence.” See e.g.Johnson, ¶ 17 (citing American Agrijusters Co. v. Mont. Dep't of Labor and Indus., 1999 MT 241, ¶ 15, 296 Mont. 176, 988 P.2d 782). Applying this standard, we have reversed BOLA's findings of fact when they were plainly not supported by the record or where the Board failed to review the record in making its decision. See e.g. Moody v. Northland Royalty Co., 281 Mont. 26, 31, 930 P.2d 1100, 1103 (1997) (reversing BOLA's decision where BOLA found that the employee made a false statement, but there was “no indication in the record” that the statement was false); Mont. Dep't of Corrections, ¶¶ 19–21 (reversing BOLA's decision where BOLA reversed the hearing officer without reviewing the record to determine whether there was substantial evidence to support a finding of willful disregard of the employer's interest).

  5. Sheila Callahan & Friends, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Labor & Indus.

    280 P.3d 895 (Mont. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    “ Supported by evidence” means supported by substantial evidence, which is “ something more than a scintilla of evidence, but may be less than a preponderance of the evidence.” Am. Agrijusters Co. v. Mont. Dept. of Lab. and Indus., 1999 MT 241, ¶ 15, 296 Mont. 176, 988 P.2d 782. We review questions of law for correctness. Am. Agrijusters Co., ¶ 17.

  6. Eldredge v. Asarco Inc.

    252 P.3d 182 (Mont. 2011)   Cited 7 times

    The right to control constitutes the most crucial factor in distinguishing between employees and independent contractors. Am. Agrijusters Co. v. Mont. Dept. of Labor Indus., 1999 MT 241, ¶ 22, 296 Mont. 176, 988 P.2d 782. Four factors guide the inquiry of whether a right of control exists sufficient to give rise to an employer-employee relationship: (1) direct evidence of right or exercise of control; (2) method of payment; (3) furnishing of equipment; and (4) right to fire. Id. at ¶ 21.

  7. Johnson v. Western Transport, LLC

    359 Mont. 145 (Mont. 2011)   Cited 8 times

    ¶ 16 On judicial review, whether by a district court or this Court, the findings of the BLA as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive and the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined to questions of law. Section 39-51-2410(5), MCA; American Agrijusters Co. v. Montana Dept. of Labor and Industry, 1999 MT 241, ¶ 14-16, 296 Mont. 176, 988 P.2d 782; Brothers v. Cargill, Inc., 276 Mont. 105, 109, 915 P.2d 226, 228 (1996). "Supported by the evidence" means supported by substantial evidence.

  8. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Triple L, Inc.

    No. 21-35408 (9th Cir. May. 23, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    This purpose is reflected in the operation of the control test itself, which sets a higher standard for showing that a worker is an independent contractor than for showing a worker is an employee. See Am. Agrijusters Co. v. Mont. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 988 P.2d 782, 787 (Mont. 1999). Indeed, "independent contractor status must be established by a convincing accumulation of evidence under the factors and other tests" whereas "employee status may be established on the strength of the evidence under one of the four factors standing alone."

  9. In re FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Employment Practices Litigation

    283 F.R.D. 427 (N.D. Ind. 2012)   Cited 6 times
    Analyzing the law of several states and noting that “courts looking for either a right to control or actual exercise of control . . . needn't look further [than the employment agreement] if the agreement creates a right to control”

    Montana law places a burden of proof on the party claiming an independent contractor relationship to prove both prongs of what the Montana courts call the " AB test" : that the hired party " (a) has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of the services, both under a contract and in fact; and (b) is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business." MONT.CODE ANN. § 39-51-201(14); American Agrijusters Co. v. Montana Dep't of Labor and Indus., 296 Mont. 176, 988 P.2d 782, 787 (1999). Under this " AB test," the party claiming an independent contractor relationship must show not only that no contract vested the hiring party with the right to control the details of the contracted work, but also that the hiring party did not in fact control the details of the contracted work.

  10. Ind. 2008)

    273 F.R.D. 424 (N.D. Ind. 2008)   Cited 21 times
    Applying Missouri law

    Montana law places a burden of proof on the party claiming an independent contractor relationship to prove both prongs of what the Montana courts call the " AB test" : that the hired party " (a) has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of the services, both under a contract and in fact; and (b) is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business." MONT.CODE ANN. § 39-51-201(14); American Agrijusters Co. v. Montana Dep't of Labor and Indus., 296 Mont. 176, 988 P.2d 782, 787 (1999). Under this " AB test," the party claiming an independent contractor relationship must show not only that no contract vested the hiring party with the right to control the details of the contracted work, but also that the hiring party did not in fact control the details of the contracted work.